Balanced Leadeship r Marzano

8/13/2019 Balanced Leadeship r Marzano

1/13

BALANCED

LEADERSHIP

Balanced Leadership:What 30 years of research tells us about the effect

of leadership on student achievementTim Waters, Ed.D.Robert J. Marzano, Ph.D.

Brian McNulty, Ph.D.A Working Paper


2/13

Our leadership framework also is predicated on the notion that effective leadership means more thansimply knowing what to do - its knowing when, how, and why to do it. Effective leaders understand

how to balance pushing for change while at the same time, protecting aspects of culture, values, andnorms worth preserving. They know which policies, practices, resources, and incentives to align andhow to align them with organizational priorities. They know how to gauge the magnitude of changethey are calling for and how to tailor their leadership strategies accordingly. Finally, they understandand value the people in the organization. They know when, how, and why to create learningenvironments that support people, connect them with one another, and provide the knowledge, skills,and resources they need to succeed. This combination of knowledge and skills is the essence ofbalanced leadership.

These 70 studies involved 2,894 schools approximately 1.1million students, and 14,000 teachers.

FINDINGS

The data from our meta-analysis demonstrate that there is, in fact, a substantial relationship betweenleadership and student achievement.We found that the average effect size (expressed as a correlation) between leadership andstudent achievement is .25. To interpret this correlation, consider two schools (school A& school B) with similar student and teacher populations. Both demonstrate achievement on astandardized, norm-referenced test at the 50th percentile. Principals in both schools are also average

that is, their abilities in the 21 key leadership responsibilities are ranked at the 50th percentile. Nowassume that the principal of school B improves her demonstrated abilities in all 21 responsibilities byexactly one standard deviation see Figure 1).

Our research findings indicate that this increase in leadership ability would translate into meanstudent achievement at school B that is 10 percentile points higher than school A, as depicted inFigure 2. Expressed differently, a onestandard deviation improvement in leadership practices isassociated with an increase in average student achievement from the 50th percentile to the60th percentile. This represents a statistically significant difference in achievement. In addition to thegeneral impact of leadership, we found 21 specific leadership responsibilities significantly correlatedwith student achievement. These 21 leadership responsibilities and the average effect size for theirimpact on student achievement are reported in Figure 3.


3/13


4/13


5/13

As important as these findings are, there is another finding that is equally as important. That is, just asleaders can have a positive impact on achievement, they also can have a marginal, or worse, a negativeimpact on achievement. When leaders concentrate on the wrong school and/or classroom practices,or miscalculate the magnitude or order of the change they are attempting to implement, they cannegatively impact student achievement. Figure 4 displays the range of impact leaders can have onstudent performance. In some studies, we found an effect size for leadership and achievement of .50.

This translates mathematically into a one standard deviation difference in demonstrated leadershipability being associated with as much as a 19 percentile point increase in student achievement anincrease that is substantially larger than the 10 percentile point increase mentioned previously.In other studies, we found correlations as low as - .02. This indicates that schools where principalsdemonstrated higher competence in certain leadership areas had lower levels of student achievement.In these studies, a one standard deviation improvement in leadership practices was correlated with aone percentile point decrease in student achievement. What can we learn from this 20 percentiledifference in the impact of leadership? We have concluded there are two primary variables thatdetermine whether or not leadership will have a positive or a negative impact on achievement. Thefirst is the focus of changethat is, whether leaders properly identify and focus on improving theschool and classroom practices that are most likely to have a positive impact on student achievementin their

Harvard scholar Richard Elmore, in a study commissionedby the National Governors Association(NGA), concluded that having the right focus ofchange is a key to improving schools and increasingstudent achievement. In his report for NGA,Knowing the Right Things to Do: School Improvement and

Performance-Based Accountability, he states,Knowing the right thing to do is the centralproblem of school improvement.

Holding schools accountable for their performance depends on having people in schools with the

knowledge, skill, and judgement to make the improvements that will increase student performance.(p. 9)We reached the same conclusion in our current study of leadership. Through two previous studies,we have also identified, the right things to do in school improvement. McRELs earlier meta-analyses of classroom and school practices, self-published in reports titledA Theory-Based Meta-

Analysis of Research on Instruction (1998) andA New Era of School Reform What 30 Years ofResearch Tells Us (1999), and published by ASCD in two volumes titled Classroom Instruction thatWorks (2000) and What Works in Schools (2002), provides guidance for leaders on what the focus oftheir improvement efforts should be.school. The second variable is whether leaders properly understand the magnitude or orderof change they are leading and adjust their leadership practices accordingly. We discuss these variablesin greater detail in the following sections.


6/13

The school and classroom practices associated with increased student achievement identified in thesepublications are presented in Figure 5. For school leaders and leadership teams with questions aboutwhere they should be focusing their improvement efforts, these school and teacher practices andstudent factors offer a place to start. Just as we are able to document the relationshipbetween leadership and student achievement through our current study, our earlier analysesdocumented an even stronger relationship between these school and teacher practices and studentfactors and student achievement. The school and classroom practices in Figure 5 account for 20percent of the variance in student achievement. This translates mathematically into 72 percent ofstudents passing a standardized assessment that only 50 percent of students are expected to pass. Inother words, focusing on the most effective or most needed practices can change a schools passingrate from 50 to 72 percent.Accordingly, the message for leaders is that in order to have positive impact on student achievement,they The theoretical literature on leadership, change, and the adoption of new ideas (including Heifetz,Fullan, Beckard, Pritchard, Hesslebein, Johnson, Kanter, Bridges, Rogers, Nadler, Shaw, and Walton)makes the case that not all change is of the same magnitude. Some changes have greater implicationsthan others for staff members, students, parents, and other stakeholders. Although there are a varietyof labels given todiffering magnitudes of change (technical vs.adaptivechallenges, incremental vs.fundamental, continuous vs. discontinuous), we have used the terms first order and secondorder change to make this distinction. Figure 6 further describes the differences between theseorders of change.The magnitude or order of changeneed to not only focus improvement on these key school and classroom practices, but also accurately


7/13

understand the magnitude of change implied by these efforts.

It is important to note that not all changes represent the same order of change for each individual orstakeholder group. What will be experienced as a first order change for some may be a secondorder change for others. Assuming that all change will have the same implications for allstakeholders, and/or using practices that might be appropriate for a first order change when a secondorder change is actually implied for stakeholders, will likely result in a negative impact on studentachievement. Thus, in addition to focusing leadership efforts on school and classroom practices

associated with improved student achievement, leaders also must tailor their own leadership practicesbased on the magnitude or order of change they are leading.The implications of the change for individuals, organizations, and institutions determines themagnitude or order of change. On both individual and collective levels, changes that are consistentwith existing values and norms, create advantages for individuals or stakeholder groups with similarinterests, can be implemented with existing knowledge and resources, and where agreement exists onwhat changes are needed and on how the changes should be implemented can be considered firstorder. In an educational context, these might be new classroom instructional practices, instructionalmaterials, curricular programs, or data collection and reporting systems that build on establishedpatterns and utilize existing knowledge.A change becomes second order when it is not obvious how it will make things better for peoplewith similar interests, it requires individuals or groups of stakeholders to learn new approaches, or it

conflicts with prevailing values and norms. To the degree that individuals and/or stakeholder groupsin the school or school system hold conflicting values, seek different norms, have differentknowledge, or operate with varying mental models of schooling, a proposed change might represent afirst order change for some and a second order change for others.Different perceptions about the implications of change can lead to one persons solution becomingsomeone elses problem. That is, if a change has first order implications for one person or group ofindividuals, yet has second order implications for another person or group, this latter group may viewthe change as a problem rather than a solution. This is true of nearly every educational reformintroduced over the last 20 years. The shift from focusing on the inputs of schooling to the outputs ofschooling, which was the core concept in outcome-based education is a classic and dramaticexample of one persons solution being someone elses problem.There are many more current examples. The role and use of content standards, high-stakes testing


8/13

and accountability, adjustments in school days, school weeks, and school years, non-gradedclassrooms, home schooling, and school vouchers are for some educators, policy makers, and parents,first order changes; they are appropriate responses to what these individuals see as problems with

schools. These solutions are consistent with their prevailing values and norms and are seen asnatural extensions of their ongoing efforts to improve schools.However, other policymakers, educators, and parents may see them as dramatic and undesirable may

see such changes as breaks with the past which conflict sharply with their prevailing values and norms.In short, they are viewed as second order changes. That is, instead of being viewed as solutions,many see them as problems facing schools and school systems, which have far greater implications forstudents and stakeholder groups than those currently facing the schools.Recognizing which changes are first and second order for which individuals and stakeholder groupshelps leaders to select leadership practices and strategies appropriate for their initiatives. Doing soenhances the likelihood of sustainable initiatives and a positive impact on achievement. Failing to do

so will just as likely result in the negative impact on achievement depicted in Figure 4.

Selecting the appropriate leadership practicesEach of the 21 leadership responsibilities presented in Figure 3 includes several different leadershippractices. The practices associated with each of the leadership responsibilities are presented in Figure7. For instructive purposes, these practices have been plotted along a continuum based on whetherthey are most appropriate for first or second order changes.In reviewing the figure, readers should keep in mind that while only some of the practices listed hereare required to lead first order change, skillful use of all practices listed is required to successfully leadsecond order change. Effective leaders understand both the order of change they are leading and howto select and skillfully use appropriate leadership practices.

It is also important to note that depending on school context, both first and second order changescan lead to gains in student achievement. However, in many situations, it becomes clear thatnecessary changes are in fact, second order changes. Thus, to be effective, school leaders must

become adept at leading both first and second order changes. As an example, consider the firstresponsibility listed in Figure 7, Culture (i.e., the extent to which the principal fosters shared beliefsand a sense of community and cooperation). The practices associated with this responsibility include:1. Promotes cooperation among staff, 2. Promotes a sense of well being, 3. Promotes cohesionamong staff, 4. Develops shared understanding of purpose, and 5. Develops a shared vision of whatthe school could be like.For first order changes, the first three practices promoting cooperation, a sense of well being, andcohesion among staff may be all that is needed from leadership for successful implementation.However, for second order changes, these first three practices will be insufficient to fulfill thisresponsibility.Second order changes require leaders to work far more deeply with staff and the community. It ispossible that second order changes will disrup cooperation, a sense of well being, and cohesion.

Second order changes may confront group identities, change working relationships, challengeexpertise and competencies, and throw people into stages of conscious incompetence, none ofwhich is conducive to cooperation, cohesion, and a sense of well-being. In these cases, establishingagreement on the purposes of schooling and the proposed changes, along with a truly shared vision ofpossibilities, will be essential if cooperation among staff, a sense of well being, and cohesion are to bemaintained, or re-established, as the change is being implemented.


9/13


10/13


11/13


12/13


13/13

Documents

Balanced Leadeship r Marzano